In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smb: client: fix krb5 mount with username option
Customer reported that some of their krb5 mounts were failing against
a single server as the client was trying to mount the shares with
wrong credentials. It turned out the client was reusing SMB session
from first mount to try mounting the other shares, even though a
different username= option had been specified to the other mounts.
By using username mount option along with sec=krb5 to search for
principals from keytab is supported by cifs.upcall(8) since
cifs-utils-4.8. So fix this by matching username mount option in
match_session() even with Kerberos.
For example, the second mount below should fail with -ENOKEY as there
is no 'foobar' principal in keytab (/etc/krb5.keytab). The client
ends up reusing SMB session from first mount to perform the second
one, which is wrong.
$ ktutil
ktutil: add_entry -password -p testuser -k 1 -e aes256-cts
Password for [email protected]:
ktutil: write_kt /etc/krb5.keytab
ktutil: quit
$ klist -ke
Keytab name: FILE:/etc/krb5.keytab
KVNO Principal
---- ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 [email protected] (aes256-cts-hmac-sha1-96)
$ mount.cifs //w22-root2/scratch /mnt/1 -o sec=krb5,username=testuser
$ mount.cifs //w22-root2/scratch /mnt/2 -o sec=krb5,username=foobar
$ mount -t cifs | grep -Po 'username=\K\w+'
testuser
testuser
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it